Retrieve a full section (story / بخش) with all its beyts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Stable URL slug | |
| section_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| beyts | No | ||
| daftar | Yes | ||
| title_fa | Yes | ||
| beyt_count | No | ||
| last_beyt_global | No | ||
| first_beyt_global | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, or the need to specify either slug or section_id. It only states the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without filler words, front-loading the action 'Retrieve'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters, nor does it provide enough distinguishing information relative to the 13 sibling tools, so the agent cannot reliably select and invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the two parameters or when to use slug versus section_id. While the schema describes slug as 'Stable URL slug', the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the optionality and selection ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a full section') and clarifies it returns all beyts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_sections or get_ghazal by the scope of a 'full section.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_range or find_sections. The description is solely a functional statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool clearly targets a distinct operation: commentary, section title search, range retrieval, section retrieval, specific beyt lookup, random selection, full-text search, semantic search, table of contents, and quote verification. No overlap in purpose.
Names are a mix of single verbs (explain, lookup, verify, search) and verb_noun with underscores (find_sections, get_range, get_section, search_meaning, random_beyt, table_of_contents). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces consistency.
With 10 tools, the server covers all essential operations for exploring and verifying Masnavi content without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for its purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive for a reference server: browsing, various search modes, targeted retrieval, commentary access, and quote verification. No obvious gaps for typical user queries.
